Chills

Something important that Canva can do but the Affinity trio cannot do is create websites. Canva's own efforts at Affinity's expertise are limited to put it mildly. This buyout by Canva need not be a disaster. Sure Canva are putting up prices to companies but still recruit one man bands cheaply and students and charities for free. Serif offered  free use of Affinity during the lockdown to new users including many students. The attitudes are not too dissimilar. Let's see how this all pans out.
Back on track. How about a DAM that handles all Affinity products initially in phase one, all Affinity and Canva products in phase two, and everything else in phase three. This could be achieved without diverting Serif experts from that which they are undoubtabley expert.
 

This is why it is worth Affinity doing a DAM that links the three together.  As Aphoto  does image editing, there doesn't need to be any image editing in it.  Though it does need metadata editing,  both EXIF and ITPC. 
 

This is why it is worth Affinity doing a DAM that links the three together.  As Aphoto  does image editing, there doesn't need to be any image editing in it.  Though it does need metadata editing,  both EXIF and ITPC. 
 

Are you abbreviating guys doing all of those comments on your phones or something? How hard it is to type out the full words for Affinity Photo and Affinity Publisher, or even just Photo and Publisher if there's no brand ambiguity.

So it looks like they pushed out the future intention of IOP by a couple of years.
I would think all companies the size of Canva have a possible IOP on the roadmap somewhere.
Why is this an issue?  Other than for Pat as he would, I assume, be directly impacted personally.
 

The article is behind a paywall, but that is one heck of a price increase!

I think Thomahawk made up the quote, ie; his interpretation of the article he linked to. I wasn't able to read that article, which seems to be about AI, and Canva boosting the prices of their products by 300%. However reading Bryan Reiger's post, he may have read the linked article.
IMHO, I don't understand why so many people getting their BVDs all bunched up, over corporations, companies doing what they do to make money. It's just a natural progression. They want to grow, make more, so they can invest more. IPO just allows them to use other people to invest in their product.
I guess we could do like we did Budlight and others, and boycott. Cost them $$$ Billions. I don't see Canva / Affinity doing an IPO as a valid reason to try and trash them..
 

This is why it is worth Affinity doing a DAM that links the three together.  As Aphoto  does image editing, there doesn't need to be any image editing in it.  Though it does need metadata editing,  both EXIF and ITPC. 
 

The Affinity file format (.afphoto, .afdesign, .afpub) is not documented, and is understood by very few other applications. The thumbnail image in an Affinity file is accessible via standard methods, and some applications will show it. But accessing the Metadata would require reverse-engineering the file format for either reading or writing.

As you're a bit OCD, please consider not abbreviating, or using the right abbreviation  
 

AP is officially, in these forums, an abbreviation for Affinity Photo. For example, you'll notice that AP is underlined here in my sentence, and in the text I quoted from you. And if you hover over that highlighted word you will get the tooltip explanation "Affinity Photo".
For Publisher, you would have to use APu or APub. 
But I agree it has a strong potential to become confusing, and we can't depend on users realizing what the official abbreviations are, so yes, it's better not to abbreviate, at least until the context is clear. 

Some members of the forum are suggesting the DAM features of other photo editing suites.  This is not helpful to users of Designer or Publisher. Also photographers may wonder why buy two photo editors. It highlights the risk of Serif losing Photo only users due to the lack of DAM.
I see Imatch mentioned. How useful is this for a user of Affinity Publisher and Photo? I would appreciate an experienced Affinity and Imatch user to give a brief review of Imatch in this context.

and good thing she has you for support, asking any other "normal" tech user and they are going to give puzzled looks when trying to fix any issues. 
I am relatively geeky, and navigate well between Mac and Windows. Linux is is a whole other thing, I have tried a few variants but none of them feel anywhere near as polished as Mac OS. I have tried Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu and Kali. Basically the ones that direct install as a VM from Parallels. Now my use is very light and limited, merely checking things out. I did have a look at what is going on in the Linux / Wine thread and the people who are getting it to run on the various distros. Unless I am missing something I have zero clue how I would even start or attempt a start on getting Affinity through Wine in Linux. Much more or a learning curve, though I am sure gets better in time. The trade off of being so limited in applications and the unpolished feel is just not worth it to me to invest time and break a good eco system with Apple. 
 

Exporting to PDF requires changing the ALL SPREADS to ALL PAGES every time. The below the line settings can be saved as a preset but not that. Who always exports PDFs as Spreads? None of the printers I work with will work with that. It is a huge potential for error, having to change it every time I export.

And there we have it. Refusal to accept reality with "so-called "facts""  Sorry, but they are facts. However, as you admit, there are no professional tools on Linux.  Not strictly true, there are a very few.
You then have the fairy tale/propaganda that if the tools were available, lots of people would jump ship.  With absolutely no evidence other than the religious zeal you find in most cults.  If there was *ANY* truth in what you were saying, Adobe would have a Linux version of their tools.    Resolve would support more than just one current distribution (and version) of Linux.  
No matter what the Linux cult would like to believe, there is no commercial argument for doing Linux versions for Affinity, or Adobe or many others. 
BMD did Resolve on Linux because they ported it from another POSIX OS to ONE version of Linux when the cost of a single seat was around $250,000, and you had to buy the hardware desks to go with it. None of the users wanted Linux per se, they wanted Resolve, and it came with the computer it ran on that just happened to run Linux.   When BMD  went to a stand-alone Resolve that was $1000 and did not need BMD hardware, they did MAC then Windows (but NOT Linux).  It was some years later they release the stand-alone Linux version because they already had it.  Otherwise, there would not be a Linux version of Resolve.  BMD created their own Linux market on ONE SINGLE DISTRO of Linux.
There are also many solid technical reasons why Linux is a very poor choice for an OS for anything. This involves the architecture.  I mentioned it before but the Linux Devotees don't seem to understand OS and RTOS architectures.  Tanenbaum explained it very well and undergraduate level. It is a complex subject, and it is difficult to explain it at a lower level than that.

Perhaps, but the removal occurred when they were doing a major restructuring of the New Document dialog, which would have needed extensive testing and documentation anyway. So if they were going to do that, they did it at a good time to minimize work. (Even if it was a bad decision to remove them.)
I can only assume that no one at Serif considered this streamlining to be a waste of time. 
I have no good idea why they did it, other than to streamline a long list of presets, and to remove some they apparently didn't think saw much use among the users. And the removal doesn't affect me, but I'd probably be objecting as strongly as the rest of you if they'd removed a standard one that I did make frequent use of.

But removing these format presets was just as challenging, wasn't it? So who could have decided that the Serif developers were wasting their precious time and resources like this? And to remove the completely basic, standard (see ISO 216) and commonly used dimensions of printing sheets in professional practice? I hope this "smart" head was properly "rewarded" for this senseless and for professional tool completely irrational decision.

Yes, I only design for the big sizes, and of course I miss them too. I don't use smaller than A2, ever.
I don't think it's a good solution for Serif to try to pick a range of sizes that will make as many people as possible happy.
I would suggest Serif to build an underlying database of paper formats to search and supplement from, how many and which formats are default in templates would then not be so crucial.

Thing is they had them at one time and intentionally removed them; this is a duplicate thread:
 

Well said! I wonder how many of them know anything about graphics from a basic and first principles level!

With respect Walt, that's a pretty lame excuse! I get the impression that the developers live in a world of their own with only minimal acknowledgement to users needs.

You can add A0, A1, and A2 sizes to the list with about 60 seconds of effort. These are just presets so you can add whatever sizes you like. I recommend doing this in dark mode as the Save Preset As icon is invisible in light mode.

Such a procedure is cumbersome and incomprehensible. All DIN A formats should already be available when creating a new document.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Add+A2,+A1+and+A0+to+Photo+and+Designer+site:https://forum.affinity.serif.com

That is the problem and why Linux will never be a mainstream desktop OS.
It is used by Linux Devotees who follow the faith not the masses. 
As a SW geek it is a nice community, but as a desktop system in the consumer/commercial world it doesn't fly.